I say debate, but really there has been none, since everyone who has written in has equally deplored this usage.
I think it might be acceptable in a certain context and with certain things understood.
I've forgotten the correct order in which to parse a verb, but I think this could be the first person, passive, past historic.
Like, for example, in this sentence:
"I was situated in the back of the car."
I think the problem arises because the verb "to stand" is often though of as intransitive. The use "to stand something" is often overlooked.
"I stood the vase on the table"
The verb "to situate" is more often used intransitively.
I situated myself at the bus stop" is not often seen, but is correct usage of a transitive verb with the reflexive pronoun.
I was situated at the bus stop" is the more common, and equally correct usage of a participle adjective (past historic?).
I stood myself at the bus stop" is correct usage of the reflexive construction.
"I was stood at the bus stop" therefore, I would argue, is similarly acceptable as a construction using the passive past historic particle, as an adjective.
What are people's thoughts on this?
strange passive to me, I'd opt for:
"I stood at the bus stop."
"I was standing at the bus stop."
and you're wrong again according to this language arbiter:
Sitting and Standing
Say 'I was sitting on the bus' and 'I was standing in the queue', not 'I was sat' and 'I was stood'.
I was stood up on a date.
yes, that would be correct, IMO.
Looking for ESL work?: Try our EFL / TOEFL / ESL Jobs Section!
Marius Hancu"I was stood at the bus stop. "Both active. Use of the passive adds additional flavour. What do you mean by "strange passive"? I think it is past historic participle.
Marius Hancu and you're wrong again according to this language arbiter:I'll look this up, because I think it needs to be changed. I don't care if they have to put "Archaic" but grammatically I think it can be correct in certain usage, as I have explained. I'm not too worried about being told I'm wrong, just why - Just like Creationists can tell me I'm wrong about the world being older than 6000 years (by pointing to a resource they think is as infallible as your "bible") but they can't show me why.
Marius HancuI was stood up on a date.Err. That's a completely different verb phrase dependent on the accompanying "up". Not really relevant here.
You can "plop yourself down on the couch" or you can "haul yourself out of the house.'' You can "situate yourself" somewhere - I situated myself in a strategic spot so I could see who came into the restaurant without being easily seen myself.
But I have never heard anyone say they "stood themselves" somewhere. And even if they did, it still wouldn't be "I was stood" - it would be "I stood myself."
As we've said here before, we can't stop people from using whatever words and tenses they want - but we can try to save you the embarrassment of having everyone who reads it think you are using sub-standard English. We'll stop trying now on this one.
(Also, if you are going to chastice Marius for bringing up a usage for "stood up" as not being relevant, I suggest you follow your own advice when it comes to creationism.)
Grammar GeekGarnett, unless you are an inanimate object, other people don't "stand you" somewhere. If you are dead and rigor mortis has set in, I suppose I can prop you somewhere - at the bus stop, if you wish. But at that point, you've really lost the abilty to use the word "I," haven't you?
He drowned in the river.
He was drowned in the river.
Both sentences can mean the same thing even though the latter one appears to be in the passive voice. On the other hand, the latter sentence can also mean that a crime was involved, that someone kept this person's head underwater long enough for him to, well, drown. This usage of passive structures instead of the active is peculiar to English, to be situated is one of the most frequently used ones:
The house is situated in a valley. (= The house lies in a valley.)
However, the verb to stand is never used in the passive when no passive is intended. There is no special reason for this. It just isn't.
So, in reply to your question 'What are people's thoughts on this?' I must say I agree with the previous posters. There is no Language Academy in the Anglo-Saxon world and that is one of the reasons why there is often an abundance of opinions regarding correct usage. I have noticed that I quite often have a larger error scope than some of the regular posters on this forum, but I must say you will have a hard time trying to find a usage expert who considers I was stood at the bus stop correct.
Cool BreezeAs there are so few inflections in English, the few grammatical forms that exist must cover everything. This sometimes leads to ambiguity and illogical, or at least inconsistent usage. Consider the following sentences:Thanks for the reply Cool Breeze. I agree with what you say apart from "However, the verb to stand is never used in the passive when no passive is intended. There is no special reason for this. It just isn't".
That's really all you say that conflicts with what I've said previously.
I understand why people don't want to say this is correct usage, because it just sounds wrong, but I think this is because we all so used to hearing it used intransitively, especially in that context. "I stood at the bus stop" is far more straightforward and undisputedly correct, so why try anything else?
The use of the past passive participle adds a sense of circumstances beyond the subject's control.
To say "There is no special reason for this. It just isn't" is like saying "I'm right because I'm right".
Another example: "In there corner was stood a large clock"
GarnettTo say "There is no special reason for this. It just isn't" is like saying "I'm right because I'm right".Hi Garnett
You wanted opinions and got them. I don't understand why you should get angry because of that. Surely can't expect everybody to agree with you?
I agree with you when you say: It's just like saying I'm right because I'm right. I just wouldn't say I am right, I would say grammarians say it's right. There is no reason for everything in linguistics. Can you tell me why I is is wrong? Why do we say I am, why not I is? What is the reason for this? I don't know any other 'reason' than the fact that at some stage in the history of the English language people began saying so. Actually, some people say I is, yet practically all usage experts think it's wrong.
It is your privilege to disagree with me and the other posters And who knows, maybe one day the majority of experts and common people alike will regard I was stood as correct. As Clive has wisely said, "Language evolves." You can think I was stood is correct right now if you want to. I have no objection to that.
People are waiting to help.
Related forum topics: